Also known as "Cause and Effect"...that is, for every effect there is a cause.
Since we exist, there HAD TO BE a First Cause.
That First Cause is "God".
There...that wasn't so bad, was it?
There are people who try to make this more complicated by asking, "Well, what was BEFORE the First Cause?"
Honestly, the answer has to be "nothing" OR "the First Cause ALWAYS existed"...but THAT doesn't change the fact that there HAD TO BE a First Cause. If this answer isn't enough for people, then their goal isn't understanding. Their goal is confusion and they should never get mad when other people respond to them in every day life in the same manner.
Actually, every thinking person believes in a First Cause. Atheists, evolutionists, religious people, etc. all believe in a First Cause. The REAL issue is the identity of the First Cause.
Isn't that what the discussion is about when people say, "What came before the First Cause?" Why aren't we just honest about the discussion we are having?
Whenever most religious people try to prove God exists, they are really trying to prove two things:
1. God's existence
2. God's identity
The non-believer focuses on finding a contradiction in the explanation of God's identity. Once they find one, they can throw out the whole proof.
If we take this proof in two steps, we see step 1 is provable and agreed upon by all thinking people. The second step is really where we should be spending our time. Isn't this a better discussion anyway? (After all, it is the discussion we are having anyway.)
Some atheists and evolutionists believe the First Cause is "randomness". Most religious people believe the First Cause is the God of the Bible...however, their explanation is contradictory.
Twelve years ago I worked on a non-contradictory model for God. Eight years ago, I determined it:
1. God is always completely right
2. God is always completely just
3. God can't do anything apart from right and just.
The "truly brilliant" people seem to focus on "God" being tangible so they can ask, "What created the tangible being?" If they were "truly brilliant", wouldn't they realize "God" must be real and intangible? What other explanation exists? The only thing I know of that are real and intangible are principles...God must be a set of non-contradictory principles.
Notice, these principles have always existed and can be a First Cause that RESULTS in creation. Randomness is a RESULT of another (unknown) cause...
God is the qualitative principle of "right" and the quantitative principle of "just". These principles are causeless AND the cause of all the other principles. Scientist consider principles to be real and able to be the cause of all the tangible things we see...why don't they stay consistent and apply this same concept to determining the identity of the First Cause.
Is it because they are unwilling or unable?
Notice also when atheists say God doesn't exist, they have to define "God" in order to determine the non-existence of "God".
Why do atheists say God doesn't exist?
Because things aren't right or just in this world!
Even atheists know the identity of God...
For more discussion, here is an updated explanation of God's identity
For more explanation on the model for God, how I arrived at it, and its implications, please click here.